NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh

..change isn't just about who the leader is. look at the processes labour has been/is going through in the uk. the power struggles within the party that results in intensive debate re left vs center, the depth of the leftist leaning platform, the rise of movements to support that platform, the membership involvement in policy making. little if any of this is going on inside the ndp that i can see.

That is very true...and that is largely because the party's braintrust has seemingly been obsessed with keeping the people who would create that ferment the hell out of the party. The people who would create that activity within the party have ended up in the social movements instead, where they have been hugely successful in creating widespread popular support for the type of programs and policies the NDP braintrust is determined to keep the party a hundred kilometres away from.

As a result, there is massive, vibrant energy and enthusiasm in the social movements and, at present, none in the NDP at all. And there is no significant group of voters who are rewarding the NDP for being a passion-free zone and a creativity-free zone.

..the left collective i belonged to in the early 70' was created by disenchanted ndy who left the party voluntarily. the ndp was just not radical enough. many were also involved in the various left groups around wpg such as cp & trots.

..but i don't think that it's all the work of the brain trust today. the same thing was happening with labour during the third way years yet the membership did rise to the occasion when presented with the corbyn platform. the membership of the ndp for the most part are moderates is how i see it.

Even so Trudeau is almost guaranteed another majority because he is still in his first term and Scheer is boring.

Trudeau is not guaranteed anything. I dont think he will win even a minority let alone a majority. Sneer maybe boring to you but he is carefully nurturing his base. Harper was also called boring, he did pretty well for a boring guy, and I am sure Harper is advising Sneer to be boring as well.

Even so Trudeau is almost guaranteed another majority because he is still in his first term and Scheer is boring.

Trudeau is not guaranteed anything. I dont think he will win even a minority let alone a majority. Sneer maybe boring to you but he is carefully nurturing his base. Harper was also called boring, he did pretty well for a boring guy, and I am sure Harper is advising Sneer to be boring as well.

Stanfield was boring, too, and came within two seats of knocking Justin's dad out of power in '72.

Sneer maybe boring to you but he is carefully nurturing his base. Harper was also called boring, he did pretty well for a boring guy, and I am sure Harper is advising Sneer to be boring as well.

Harper was able to win without ever getting 40% of the vote because the Liberals had a series of bad leaders and the NDP had a good one - and, equally importantly - the Liberals had been reduced to a minor party in Quebec. When that situation reversed Harper lost. The NDP has an even worse leader than Mulcair this time. The only credible strategy for Scheer to win is to move to the centre and court some who had voted Liberal, something he appears unwilling to do.

Scheer can smile away, but Trudeau now has a new bogeyman north of the border (Ford) to run against. It's not a coincidence that the federal Liberals took a big jump in the polls in Ontario after the provincial election.

Scheer just told the Toronto Sun editoral board that he wants to raise the age of pot consumption from 18 to older, saying 18 is way to young to smoke pot. So that might engage the youth vote to rally around Trudeau

None of the troops, from any country, fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else in the Middle East are "peacekeepers". There is no such thing as "humanitarian intervention"-there, or anyplace else. Anytime troops are sent in now, it's about nothing but access to another country's resources for corporate profit.

I agree with you but reality doesn't matter. Being right doesn't win you votes. Without votes you cannot win. If you don't care about winning, and you just want to inform people, then you are an activist group first and a political party second.

A political party has core philosophies but when it comes to platforms and campaigning it won't win if it doesn't play the game creatively and wisely with rock solid simple arguments. Like the right, the party need not announce all its plans before getting elected.

Legault did run on PR but even so, if he does as he says he will, there will be no referendum. He has a majority. He's just going to do it. Once you have power you don't have to convince people. You can just do pretty much whatever if you are smart about it.

Unfortunately the NDP provincial wins don't seem to have led them to lean particularly leftward or take the opportunity to institute Progressive systems, nationalize industries, etc.

I think you want the NDP to go farther left than what would allow them to win power and influence policy. I do agree with you that they need to present innovative policy that begins to dismantle neoliberalism. Having said that you might as well ask them to be a far right party. Even if you want to change a party at some point you need to admit to yourself what it actually is. The NDP is a moderately centre left party with an emphasis on labour and focused primarily on national interests.

There is a leftwing faction of the NDP but that is all it is. A faction that does not control the party or the agenda at conventions. Maybe it could grow but expecting Singh to be radically more left than the rest of the party when he wasn't elected to do any such thing is unfair. If he were what you want him to be he would not have been elected leader of the party.

When addressing voters the NDP has to forget about left right and centre and influencing people ideologically and instead think of pragmatic economic solutions that are easily defended.

There is no economic solution that does not have an ideological component.

Exactly. What appears to be not ideological is in fact usually just a bullshit nonanswer that tries to please everyone while providing no solution at all.

In many cases solutions can be non partisan, while still ideological but parties tend to be loyal to their ideologies such that they cannot make room for non partisan solutions. The distinction is that nonpartisan means that an ideology may be not directly connected to a party and even shared by more than one, whereas the parties are not disconnected to ideologies.

People have it backwards. It is not that the solutions can be non-ideological it is that the parties are unwilling not to approach these ideologies without extreme partisanship. Since parties also line up for and against ideology, any resonce to them must mean engaging with this ideological stance which is a conflict of interest for the party when faced with a practicel solution which by necessity also reflects more of one ideology than another.

People cannot advocate outside the parties without running into those parties pervasive partisan interests. Trying to pretend that solutions can be non ideological only leaves the ground more free to being taken over by partisanship. When it comes to partisianship, it is often hypocritical whereas what is ideological tends not to be.

It is healthier to be ideological rather than partisan. At times you can be. At times the nature of the parties means that you can only respond by being to a degree, both.

The ignorance of the population is enough that the fuzzy arguments in favour of nonpartisan and non ideological just muddy everything so the people cannot see or engage with the real powers that are controlling things. This is what allows a screw the people party to call itself "for the People."

"The results of this experiment, once complete, will inform policy decisions all over the world. ... As business leaders, we urge you to reverse this decision to cancel the basic income pilot program."

Many in the business community, in Canada and abroad, have come around to the idea that a basic income could cushion the blow to the middle class from a rapidly changing economy. Among them are Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Virgin founder Richard Branson and Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, all of whom have publicly expressed an interest in basic income in the past few years.

The CEOs' letter argues that a confluence of trends — automation, offshoring of jobs and the shift to part-time and gig work, among other things — are all threatening to upend the prospects of middle-income workers.

Trade deals are not right wing. I mean they are now but they don't need to be. It isn't an inherent quality of trade deals.

I think that at some point ideology needs to be discarded as an unnecessary lens through which to determine public wants and needs or through which to communicate with the public.

Peoples wants and needs along with solutions existed before political and philosophical categories were invented. Is it impossible to discuss min income without labeling it left or right? How about nationalization of industries? Can't it just be a good idea in it's own right defended by factual information rather than being labeled or promoted as progressive or left wing or socialist?

Trying to sell the nationalization of a particular industry is a lot easier than trying to sell the idea of broad nationalization of many industries or selling leftist theory on collectivism.

None of the troops, from any country, fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else in the Middle East are "peacekeepers". There is no such thing as "humanitarian intervention"-there, or anyplace else. Anytime troops are sent in now, it's about nothing but access to another country's resources for corporate profit.

I agree with you but reality doesn't matter. Being right doesn't win you votes. Without votes you cannot win. If you don't care about winning, and you just want to inform people, then you are an activist group first and a political party second.

A political party has core philosophies but when it comes to platforms and campaigning it won't win if it doesn't play the game creatively and wisely with rock solid simple arguments. Like the right, the party need not announce all its plans before getting elected.

Legault did run on PR but even so, if he does as he says he will, there will be no referendum. He has a majority. He's just going to do it. Once you have power you don't have to convince people. You can just do pretty much whatever if you are smart about it.

Unfortunately the NDP provincial wins don't seem to have led them to lean particularly leftward or take the opportunity to institute Progressive systems, nationalize industries, etc.

I think you want the NDP to go farther left than what would allow them to win power and influence policy. I do agree with you that they need to present innovative policy that begins to dismantle neoliberalism. Having said that you might as well ask them to be a far right party. Even if you want to change a party at some point you need to admit to yourself what it actually is. The NDP is a moderately centre left party with an emphasis on labour and focused primarily on national interests.

There is a leftwing faction of the NDP but that is all it is. A faction that does not control the party or the agenda at conventions. Maybe it could grow but expecting Singh to be radically more left than the rest of the party when he wasn't elected to do any such thing is unfair. If he were what you want him to be he would not have been elected leader of the party.

Why did you have to bring your obsession with whether or not there's a referendum even into THIS thread? It's a dead issue. There's nothing else to say about it.

"The results of this experiment, once complete, will inform policy decisions all over the world. ... As business leaders, we urge you to reverse this decision to cancel the basic income pilot program."

Many in the business community, in Canada and abroad, have come around to the idea that a basic income could cushion the blow to the middle class from a rapidly changing economy. Among them are Tesla CEO Elon Musk, Virgin founder Richard Branson and Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, all of whom have publicly expressed an interest in basic income in the past few years.

The CEOs' letter argues that a confluence of trends — automation, offshoring of jobs and the shift to part-time and gig work, among other things — are all threatening to upend the prospects of middle-income workers.

Trade deals are not right wing. I mean they are now but they don't need to be. It isn't an inherent quality of trade deals.

I think that at some point ideology needs to be discarded as an unnecessary lens through which to determine public wants and needs or through which to communicate with the public.

Peoples wants and needs along with solutions existed before political and philosophical categories were invented. Is it impossible to discuss min income without labeling it left or right? How about nationalization of industries? Can't it just be a good idea in it's own right defended by factual information rather than being labeled or promoted as progressive or left wing or socialist?

Trying to sell the nationalization of a particular industry is a lot easier than trying to sell the idea of broad nationalization of many industries or selling leftist theory on collectivism.

I think according to "rightist" philosophy, the government should never guarantee a basic income as doing so impedes the free flow of supply and demand.

I think according to "rightist" political philosophy, trade deals are not required as trade should be allowed to cross borders freely.

I think according to "rightist" political philosophy, the government should never nationalize businesses as doing so hinders the free market and the natural flow of supply and demand.

I think "rightist" philosophy also contends that business people and pro-business politicians are not necessarily rightists.

Why did you have to bring your obsession with whether or not there's a referendum even into THIS thread? It's a dead issue. There's nothing else to say about it.

Referendum on PR Ken. You know, like BC is going to have? Why is it any of your business to police what I post about? Have you decided I shouldn't be permitted to even say the word anymore no matter what it pertains to? You weren't reading for comprehension.

You could just ignore my posts if you aren't interested. But no, you think it is your job to pass judgement over what I choose to discuss.

If I choose to discuss how the issue of referendums or separation impacts Quebec politics I have every right to especially as pollsters are still asking people's position on the topic and parties are still taking a position on it. Those polls are turning up new information on the intersections between left and right, independence or unity. If it doesn't interest you I strongly recommend that you don't discuss it. The list of issues I don't discuss on this board is way long. It is ironic that you brought the discussion into this thread not me.

I even asked you leave me alone. Not to quote me. Not to refer to me. But you're obsessed. I've said go ahead and address any ideas in my posts that you disagree with just leave me out of it.

Back off. Leave me alone. Stop harassing me. MUST I SHOUT AS YOU DO FOR YOU TO HEAR ME?

Once you post, the conversation is on a public record read by everyone. a response is to the thread not the individual. This is the problem with the decade (or more) old ignore-my-post arguments. Nobody has a right to ask for that. Posts are not for the the person that posted. They are for everyone and the same with responses. Shouting does not make this request more valid. You simply do not have the right to exclude anyone from responding to anything in a public thread.

If someone posts something you do not like then you can respond. If they complain you can ask them to move one but not enforce it. But you cannot demand that they not post to anything. Sorry but that's how it works as these are not individual conversations but a linked single collective conversation that is meant to be inclusive.

You may even be right on a point but making a demand that someone not respond won't help.

I know this is infuriating. I have been there. With you even. We cannot like the thought process of everyone all the time. But that is the deal with posting here - that you expect anyone to be able to answer in any way they like so long as it is within the rules. Harassment and attacks on your person are not permitted but attacks on your argument are to be expected, valid or not (in your view).

I even asked you leave me alone. Not to quote me. Not to refer to me. But you're obsessed. I've said go ahead and address any ideas in my posts that you disagree with just leave me out of it.

Back off. Leave me alone. Stop harassing me. MUST I SHOUT AS YOU DO FOR YOU TO HEAR ME?

Harassment is a serious issue and a serious accusation to make. Is it your intent to submit a formal harassment complaint?

You told me a long time ago not to report so I never do. I am fine with Ken commenting on the content of my posts my objection is his trying to tell me what I can and cannot post about.

He doesn't want me to post about independence referendums but this comment was about PR referendum. Even if it were about the type of referendum he doesn't want discussed what right does he have to repeatedly tell me the topic is closed and I am not to mention it? Did you elevate him to moderator?

Can I now go around the board informing people what topics they should stop discussing and telling them repeatedly until they obey?

Yes. I feel harrassed. Yes it is a serious issue. In a thread specifically on the results of the Quebec election Ken objected to my including sovereignism and referendums even though pollsters are asking about it and political parties are taking a position on it.

Since when is a poster allowed to harrass another poster into dropping a topic?

In this case my comment was about Legault not having a referendum on PR, as in Proportional Representation, not independence.

Ken did not address that topic. He objected based on the assumption that I was speaking about independence. This is because he doesn't read my posts either. You are not a stupid person. If you read the exchange for meaning you would know what I was objecting to.

..change isn't just about who the leader is. look at the processes labour has been/is going through in the uk. the power struggles within the party that results in intensive debate re left vs center, the depth of the leftist leaning platform, the rise of movements to support that platform, the membership involvement in policy making. little if any of this is going on inside the ndp that i can see.

That is very true...and that is largely because the party's braintrust has seemingly been obsessed with keeping the people who would create that ferment the hell out of the party. The people who would create that activity within the party have ended up in the social movements instead, where they have been hugely successful in creating widespread popular support for the type of programs and policies the NDP braintrust is determined to keep the party a hundred kilometres away from.

As a result, there is massive, vibrant energy and enthusiasm in the social movements and, at present, none in the NDP at all. And there is no significant group of voters who are rewarding the NDP for being a passion-free zone and a creativity-free zone.

Almost every time I look at a thread these days (not as frequently as before), I see that someone has already said what I would have said.

That is exactly what I am doing. I am tired of Ken shouting at me and telling me what topics I can discuss. If he wanted to discuss the topic that would be fine. He doesn't. He wants to tell me not to discuss it.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

​I know this is infuriating. I have been there. With you even.

Sean, you do not understand, you have not been there, I have no objection to Ken or you or anyone else engaging with ideas in my posts. That is welcome.

What I object to is being told a topic is closed and not to post on it anymore. If someone wants to discuss that topic with me that's great. I am all for it. I wouldn't post if I didn't want responses.

My comment was about PR. Ken's response was not about PR. Ken's response was on an entirely different topic. Ken's response was about his desire that I don't discuss independence referendums.

1) I wasn't discussing independence referendums. I was saying Legault is planning on imposing PR not holding a referendum on it therefore if he decides to do it Quebec could be the first province with PR.

2) Even if I had been referring to independence referendums he had no comment on the topic other than to demand it not be discussed.

3)Ken is trying to force me not to discuss the independence issue in Quebec even in threads about Quebec politics even when discussing a current poll that addresses the issue.

If Ken wants to discuss the independence issue or how it pertains or doesn't pertain to Quebec politics I am fine with that (in the appropriate thread). I am fed-up with him trying to harass me into dropping the subject even when I am not discussing it.

That is exactly what I am doing. I am tired of Ken shouting at me and telling me what topics I can discuss. If he wanted to discuss the topic that would be fine. He doesn't. He wants to tell me not to discuss it.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

​I know this is infuriating. I have been there. With you even.

Sean, you do not understand, you have not been there, I have no objection to Ken or you or anyone else engaging with ideas in my posts. That is welcome.

What I object to is being told a topic is closed and not to post on it anymore. If someone wants to discuss that topic with me that's great. I am all for it. I wouldn't post if I didn't want responses.

My comment was about PR. Ken's response was not about PR. Ken's response was on an entirely different topic. Ken's response was about his desire that I don't discuss independence referendums.

1) I wasn't discussing independence referendums. I was saying Legault is planning on imposing PR not holding a referendum on it therefore if he decides to do it Quebec could be the first province with PR.

2) Even if I had been referring to independence referendums he had no comment on the topic other than to demand it not be discussed.

3)Ken is trying to force me not to discuss the independence issue in Quebec even in threads about Quebec politics even when discussing a current poll that addresses the issue.

If Ken wants to discuss the independence issue or how it pertains or doesn't pertain to Quebec politics I am fine with that (in the appropriate thread). I am fed-up with him trying to harass me into dropping the subject even when I am not discussing it.

I was reacting to the shouting part. Not sure it helped you. Good luck working things out. Hopefully with a little time you can.

I agree that you cannot force soemone to be interested or not in a particular topic. It is also difficult to accuse someone of having an agenda since just about everyone does and that is related to the things theya re interested or not in. I did not want to get between you. I really just wanted to say that these are not personal conversations and we cannot expect people to be asked to be in or out of them.

I am sorry you feel harassed. I hope that it is not the case. I think harassment needs a personal component. If someone has a consistent beef with a point of view you hold and they respond every time you raise it this is not harassment -- and two can feel the same way -- you upset at the reaction is on level with the person upset that it was raised. You disagree and you both care enough to want to say that whenever it comes out. That is legitimate but neither can demand the other shut up so that they can keep saying their point without objection from the other side.

I know it is hard here when you care about something and have a chronic dispute with someone who also cares. Both have a right to air their grievance. So long as it is not a personal attack you can expect attacks on your points and there is no limit to that just as there is no limit to the number of times you make the point. The exception is if they go on attacking your argument long after you stop making it. I don't think that either side is doing that though.

I even asked you leave me alone. Not to quote me. Not to refer to me. But you're obsessed. I've said go ahead and address any ideas in my posts that you disagree with just leave me out of it.

Back off. Leave me alone. Stop harassing me. MUST I SHOUT AS YOU DO FOR YOU TO HEAR ME?

Harassment is a serious issue and a serious accusation to make. Is it your intent to submit a formal harassment complaint?

You told me a long time ago not to report so I never do. I am fine with Ken commenting on the content of my posts my objection is his trying to tell me what I can and cannot post about.

He doesn't want me to post about independence referendums but this comment was about PR referendum. Even if it were about the type of referendum he doesn't want discussed what right does he have to repeatedly tell me the topic is closed and I am not to mention it? Did you elevate him to moderator?

Can I now go around the board informing people what topics they should stop discussing and telling them repeatedly until they obey?

Yes. I feel harrassed. Yes it is a serious issue. In a thread specifically on the results of the Quebec election Ken objected to my including sovereignism and referendums even though pollsters are asking about it and political parties are taking a position on it.

Since when is a poster allowed to harrass another poster into dropping a topic?

In this case my comment was about Legault not having a referendum on PR, as in Proportional Representation, not independence.

Ken did not address that topic. He objected based on the assumption that I was speaking about independence. This is because he doesn't read my posts either. You are not a stupid person. If you read the exchange for meaning you would know what I was objecting to.

I do not recall ever having told anyone not to report (if you have a link that would be helpful). However, I have taken note of the fact that you have stated that you feel harassed and that you have characterized Ken as "obsessive". I am in the process of reviewing yours and Ken's interactions on babble. In the meantime this discussion should be moved elsewhere. Feel free to message me for followup.

Thank-you Ken. I appreciate your response. You are not mistaken on Legault that is exactly what I was saying. He is claiming he will simply pass it as legislation, something NDP governments have failed to run on or do. I personally think BC's approach is more democratic and there should be referendums on such a radical change but there is no arguing with results. If no one mounts big protests then maybe Legault has it right.

I think in a roundabout way my point is that Jagmeet Singh is in line with the party both federally and provincially. It is a centre left party.

I can sympathize with that as I too find the NDP far too timid but I don't blame Singh because he was not elected to take the party far left. If members want a leader that is farther left then that is who they should elect. Singh was chosen and he deserves the courtesy of leading through an election because right now he is being judged on what he is not doing rather than what he is doing. I know he isn't doing much but the likeliest explanation for that is he is saving it for the campaign.

Cullen proposed running joint nomination meetings with the Greens and Liberals to select one progressive candidate in ridings that Harper won because of vote splitting on the left.

That is correct, and the NDP would have done far better in 2015 had such a scheme been in place.

No it is not. That would have sent enough blue Liberals on the party's right flank to the Conservatives, and many NDPers would have either not voted or possibly even voted for the Conservatives out of spite to ensure enough Conservative victories in key seats.

I think according to "rightist" philosophy, the government should never guarantee a basic income as doing so impedes the free flow of supply and demand. I think according to "rightist" political philosophy, trade deals are not required as trade should be allowed to cross borders freely. I think according to "rightist" political philosophy, the government should never nationalize businesses as doing so hinders the free market and the natural flow of supply and demand. I think "rightist" philosophy also contends that business people and pro-business politicians are not necessarily rightists.

Okay, maybe poor argument on my part but I believe my central point is valid. Swing voters in particular don't identify as right or left and don't want to. They don't want to be labeled and they don't want to identify with a whole basket of positions on various topics. Economically conservative and socially liberal is common for swing voters.

Perhaps environmentalism is a better example. The right may try to portray environmentalists as on the left and extreme but even if that is true for activists it is not true for supporters of environmental causes and the environmental movement has never identified itself as leftist. Environmentalists have always focused on specific pollutants, how they are harming people, and promoting alternatives. This created a big tent that unites everyone from racists to communists. It is a quintessential 99% issue.

Even if a position is either left or right it is better that people don't associate it with either because centrists or moderates are turned off by what they see as ideological decision-making.

What about the NDP? In a recent long-form interview with Maclean’s Paul Wells, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh laid out an ambitious vision for economic policy under a future NDP government. The NDP envisions a social safety net extended to cover drugs, dental, and eyecare. Moreover, with a rejigging of seniors benefits and income support for Canadians with disabilities, Jagmeet Singh is putting together a policy package that strikes me as exactly what a social democratic party ought to be offering. No ‘small ball’ for the orange party. Instead, they’re putting together a big and bold expansion of social insurance that would have a material impact on the lives of struggling Canadians.

So of course he is being attacked on how he is going to pay for it all even though the budget will have to be presented to the parliamentary budget officer before the election.

If he says too much about how he will pay for it all now it gives the opposition way too much time to attack him on it even if he has an excellent plan. It does not matter. The media is no friend to any policies likely to undermine the status quo.

“We’ve got a regime which has got a serious record of horrible human rights violations against its own people,” Singh told CTV News from Kapuskasing, Ont. on Saturday.

“And now,” he added, “its implication and involvement in the death of a journalist makes it very clear at this point that we can no longer continue to sell arms to Saudi Arabia. There’s no way that under the current context we should be selling weapons that might be used to further oppress its citizens.”

Singh has been on a tour of the Timmins-James Bay riding with New Democrat MP and colleague Charlie Angus.....

“We should have free tuition in Canada. That is possible. That is achievable,” said Singh.

The comment drew a round of applause from the students.

He said the cost would be roughly $6 billion to $9 billion a year.

Singh said the current tuition fee of $35,000 annually for law school is no longer realistic or achievable for ordinary families.

Singh is doing what he said he would do. He is touring Canada. He is reflecting a leftward turn from where Layton and Mulcair were. It may not be as far as people would like but he is saying bold things that the media is not reporting far and wide. Free Canada wide tuition is a big deal. Coming out against Transmountain is a big deal.

Seems like he has won over Charle Angus. He has Guy Caron's support and seemingly the entire caucus.

"To meet the required emissions levels outlined by the panel,” the NDP’s Caron said, “Canada’s emissions will need to be reduced by almost half – far below our current performance. In fact, according to the panel, the world needs to reduce its (greenhouse gas) emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 to avoid catastrophic climate change. The panel has made clear that preventing a single extra degree of heat could make a life-or-death difference for millions of people across the globe. It also firmly states that our current course of action is not working."

2030, that's 10 years. The wealthy have simply accepted climate change and moved on to adaption. Perhaps they have decided to cull the world population, or they just don't care, and you know it won't be the elite that suffers.

Erskin-Smith was the only Liberal present so probably not representative of the party, even so, he quoted Trump! What an embarassment for the Liberals.

Erskine-Smith then quoted the current U.S. president, who, when asked a few days ago about climate change, said: "I don't think it's a hoax, but I don't know that it's man-made. I will say this. I don't wanna give trillions and trillions of dollars.… I don't wanna be put at a disadvantage."

My bet is that climate change will be the NDP's major platform issue. This is where both the Conservatives and Liberals are falling short. The Liberals will lose the youth vote. The Liberals economy and the environment go hand in hand is not going to fly as an excuse for pipelines. Scheer is pushing to revive Energy East. That will not go over well in Quebec.

This is the ideal long term issue for the NDP to own. It's a topic that is scaring people. It's obvious that climate change is very expensive and renewables are the way to go. A few years back the news kept assuring us that individual storms couldn't be tied to climate change although over all stronger storms are predicted. Now the talk is all about adaptation to climate change but with almost an acceptance of it as an immutable fact of life rather than something that can and must be stopped. The issue transcends left and right. It is a 99% issue.

To many people, but especially young people, to say that it's too expensive to transfer rapidly to renewables, is to choose suicide to be economical. It's insanity. We have the technology; if it costs more so be it. Duh. Even so I bet the NDP will be prepared to defend their policies with numbers.

Caron has been close to Singh almost since day one and represented the NDP at this meeting. My bet is Singh has pegged him as finance minister. Angus is touring with Singh and hasn't criticized him in ages. Somehow Singh has united caucus behind him. Could British Columbia MP Richard Cannings be environment minister?

The Green Party will 100% support the NDP if this is the NDP's major platform issue.

If you read the whole article the only Liberal present is a Trumpite. The Conservatives are mouthing platitudes about expensive gas, and the NDP has all their ducks in a row. They know their facts.

So yup, I am calling it now. The NDP is chooseing climate change as their signature unifying cause to rally members and voters not just for 2019 but also for 2023. No social justice voter can justify staying home if the NDP's platform significantly addresses climate change. This is a cause that will bring youth to the voting booth. It clearly differenciates the NDP from the Liberals and Conservatives who are both intent on pipelines.

Erskin-Smith was the only Liberal present so probably not representative of the party, even so, he quoted Trump! What an embarassment for the Liberals.

Erskine-Smith then quoted the current U.S. president, who, when asked a few days ago about climate change, said: "I don't think it's a hoax, but I don't know that it's man-made. I will say this. I don't wanna give trillions and trillions of dollars.… I don't wanna be put at a disadvantage."

Pondering you conveniently LEFT OUT this part where MP Erskine-Smith was quoting Trump NOT to praise him, but criticize the Conservatives (both on the provincial and federal level) for being like just Trump when it comes to Climate Change.

Erskine-Smith then quoted the current U.S. president, who, when asked a few days ago about climate change, said: "I don't think it's a hoax, but I don't know that it's man-made. I will say this. I don't wanna give trillions and trillions of dollars.… I don't wanna be put at a disadvantage."

Here is the part you LEFT OUT (as Erskine-Smith was quoting Trump to compare to the Conservatives also doing nothing, just like Trump)

We have politicians in Canada who also want to do nothing about climate change, the Toronto MP said, looking at the Conservative benches opposite him.

"Ontario Premier Doug Ford said that he has heard from people across Ontario and from out west, and he wants the prime minister's hands out of their pockets,” Erskine-Smith told the House. "This is … wilful blindness toward the evidence."

OMG MIGHTY-MIDDLE IS A MAGICAL HUMAN BEING THAT CAN READ MINDS!!!!!!!!!!!

No, I missed it, (which shows the importance of reading carefully) so I was shocked which is why I quoted it. Why on earth would I do it on purpose? If I were going to deliberately lie or mislead I wouldn't link to the source of the quote. Duh.

It was an aside to the main point of my commentary which is that the Liberals and Conservatives are failing to address climate change in any meaningful way.

MM, I am as non-partisan as they come. I was a strong supporter of Trudeau against Harper and Mulcair. I haven't even attacked them on new NAFTA. I am by no definition "anti-Liberal". I defend many of their actions as necessary. As I said last go around every election is a fresh start. Leader and platform is all I look at. I don't care what earlier leaders did during different mandates.

It will be easy for the NDP to outflank the Liberals on the left. Don't blame me for putting a high priority on climate change. Blame the Liberals for not doing so. A carbon tax and ocean protection plan is not enough. With the purchase of TM it is more than obvious they are not serious about transitioning away from fossil fuels.

"If not now, when" should be a primary motto for the NDP for 2019. It is as powerful as "because it's 2015" , and more powerful than "ask the rich to pay a little more" and "the middle class and those working to join it".

Short enough to fit on a T-shirt. Makes the reader think "when what?" The answer, "take action on climate change" will resonate.

My bet is that climate change will be the NDP's major platform issue. This is where both the Conservatives and Liberals are falling short.

The Conservatives have anointed Trudeau as the champion of climate change action. Whether he deserves it is not really relevant. The more they attack Trudeau on the carbon tax the more he will own the issue.

My bet is that climate change will be the NDP's major platform issue. This is where both the Conservatives and Liberals are falling short.

The Conservatives have anointed Trudeau as the champion of climate change action. Whether he deserves it is not really relevant. The more they attack Trudeau on the carbon tax the more he will own the issue.

Don't attack the carbon tax. It's fine. It's just not nearly enough. It does not make up for pushing and buying TM.

No, I missed it, (which shows the importance of reading carefully) so I was shocked which is why I quoted it. Why on earth would I do it on purpose? If I were going to deliberately lie or mislead I wouldn't link to the source of the quote. Duh.

My bet is that climate change will be the NDP's major platform issue. This is where both the Conservatives and Liberals are falling short.

The Conservatives have anointed Trudeau as the champion of climate change action. Whether he deserves it is not really relevant. The more they attack Trudeau on the carbon tax the more he will own the issue.

Don't attack the carbon tax. It's fine. It's just not nearly enough. It does not make up for pushing and buying TM.

If Scheer becomes PM, carbon pricing will be abolished and TM will likely go ahead.

Pondering you conveniently LEFT OUT this part where MP Erskine-Smith was quoting Trump NOT to praise him, but criticize the Conservatives (both on the provincial and federal level) for being like just Trump when it comes to Climate Change.

Here is the part you LEFT OUT (as Erskine-Smith was quoting Trump to compare to the Conservatives also doing nothing, just like Trump)

We have politicians in Canada who also want to do nothing about climate change, the Toronto MP said, looking at the Conservative benches opposite him.

"Ontario Premier Doug Ford said that he has heard from people across Ontario and from out west, and he wants the prime minister's hands out of their pockets,” Erskine-Smith told the House. "This is … wilful blindness toward the evidence."

The NDP got the ball rolling early in the day, with a letter to the Speaker signed by Parliamentary Leader Guy Caron. It pointed to some of the damning numbers in last week’s United Nations Panel report on climate change.

"To meet the required emissions levels outlined by the panel,” the NDP’s Caron said, “Canada’s emissions will need to be reduced by almost half – far below our current performance. In fact, according to the panel, the world needs to reduce its (greenhouse gas) emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 to avoid catastrophic climate change. The panel has made clear that preventing a single extra degree of heat could make a life-or-death difference for millions of people across the globe. It also firmly states that our current course of action is not working." ...

The BC NDP MP [Richard Cannings] had a few tangible suggestions for the Liberal government.

"Instead of investing $4.5 billion in an old pipeline,” he said, “we could copy the U.K. and spend $2 billion on building electric vehicle infrastructure across southern Canada. We could provide meaningful incentives for Canadians to switch to electric vehicles, just as Norway has done. We could invest billions in other clean technology projects across the country." ...

Green Party leader Elizabeth May’s speech was the fiercest and most passionate of the evening. She started by telling a bit of her own story as a long-time environmental policy expert and activist.

"I have had a ringside seat for the decades during which we could have arrested climate change before our glaciers were melting, before we were losing the Arctic, before our forests were on fire, before we saw draught and climate refugees, and before we had tornadoes in Ottawa,” May told her parliamentary colleagues. “We had a chance in the 1990s and we blew it. We had a chance in the first decade of this century, but every time there has been a warning from scientists, the alarm bell has rung and society has hit the snooze button."

In 1998 the Liberals signed the Kyoto Accord, but knew there was virtually no chance that they would live up to the commitment they made. Between 1998 and 2005 when the Liberal Martin government ended, instead of dropping greenhouse gas emissions 6% below 1990 levels, emissions rose by 33%.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Kyoto_Protocol)

Eddie Goldenberg, one of former prime minister Jean Chrétien's top aides, says the Liberals went ahead with the Kyoto Protocol on climate change even though they knew there was a good chance Canada wouldn't meet its goals for pollution reduction.

"Nor was the government itself even ready at the time with what had to be done," he said in a speech prepared for delivery to the Canadian Club of London, Ont. "The Kyoto targets were extremely ambitious and it was very possible that short-term deadlines would at the end of the day have to be extended."

The protocol, a United Nations-led agreement, calls for Canada to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 6 per cent below their 1990 levels by 2012.

In 2005, the Liberals under then-prime minister Paul Martin tabled a $10 billion plan to cut emissions between 2008 and 2012. But last fall, former Conservative environment minister Rona Ambrose said there was no possibility of Canada meeting its Kyoto targets and blamed the Liberals for failing to put Canada on track to do so.

We are now seeing Liberal and Conservative governments repeat the same pattern of failing to meet the global emissions reduction targets for 2020. After making dealing with climate change a centrepiece of the 2015 Liberal campaign, Trudeau simply adopted the quite inadequate Harper greenhouse gas emission reduction goals, which he is now guaranteed not to meet. Furthermore, he has instead bought and plans to build the Trans Mountain pipeline to further increase emissions and blow past the 2030 targets. In addition, Trudeau's 2030 emission reductions targets will not meet the need to reduce emissions by 45% laid out by the United Nations 195 country Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report released this month, which was noted by NDP MP in the previous post. Neither the Liberal or Conservative governments have dealt with this issue effectively over the last 20 years and in fact had no intention of doing so.

The Liberal government’s signature climate change plan — which imposes carbon pricing across the country and has been used to justify the approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion — isn’t enough to ensure Canada meets its emissions target under the Paris Agreement, according to a new report tabled Tuesday in the House of Commons.

The report, a first-of-its-kind collaboration between the auditors general of nine provinces and the federal environment commissioner, highlights “common shortcomings” in how different levels of government are combatting greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for the effects of climate change. The authors conclude that Canada is on pace to overshoot its emissions target for 2020 by nearly 20 per cent, and that more action is needed to meet the Paris Agreement target by 2030.

Don't attack the carbon tax. It's fine. It's just not nearly enough. It does not make up for pushing and buying TM.

JKR wrote:

If Scheer becomes PM, carbon pricing will be abolished and TM will likely go ahead.

Pondering wrote:

What are you implying? Surely you don't think anyone here supports Scheer?

I'm implying that if Trudeau is replaced as PM in the upcoming election we are most likely going to get Scheer as our next PM. Unfortunately because of the unfairness of FPTP, if the NDP and Green vote increases the chances of Scheer becoming PM will also increase. This is why many on the left support electoral reform and why many on the right oppose it.

I'm implying that if Trudeau is replaced as PM in the upcoming election we are most likely going to get Scheer as our next PM. Unfortunately because of the unfairness of FPTP, if the NDP and Green vote increases the chances of Scheer becoming PM will also increase. This is why many on the left support electoral reform and why many on the right oppose it.

Summarizing what I said in posts 238 and 239, Canada has had twenty years of alternating Liberal and Conservative governments with greenhouse gas emissions increasing instead of decreasing.

In 1998 the Liberals signed the Kyoto Accord, but knew there was virtually no chance that they would live up to the commitment they made. Between 1998 and 2005 when the Liberal Martin government ended, instead of dropping greenhouse gas emissions 6% below 1990 levels, emissions rose by 33%.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Kyoto_Protocol)

Eddie Goldenberg, one of former prime minister Jean Chrétien's top aides, says the Liberals went ahead with the Kyoto Protocol on climate change even though they knew there was a good chance Canada wouldn't meet its goals for pollution reduction. "Nor was the government itself even ready at the time with what had to be done," he said.

In 2011, the Conservatives having done little themselves to reduce emissions pulled out of the Kyoto Accord.

After making dealing with climate change a centrepiece of the 2015 Liberal campaign, Trudeau simply adopted the quite inadequate Harper greenhouse gas emission reduction goals for 2020, which he is now guaranteed not to meet. Furthermore, he has instead bought and plans to build the Trans Mountain pipeline to further increase emissions and blow past the 2030 targets. In addition, Trudeau's 2030 emission reductions targets will not meet the need to reduce emissions by 45% laid out by the United Nations 195 country Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report released this month, which was noted by NDP MP in the previous post.

The Liberal government’s signature climate change plan — which imposes carbon pricing across the country and has been used to justify the approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion — isn’t enough to ensure Canada meets its emissions target under the Paris Agreement, according to a new report tabled Tuesday in the House of Commons.

The report, a first-of-its-kind collaboration between the auditors general of nine provinces and the federal environment commissioner, highlights “common shortcomings” in how different levels of government are combatting greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for the effects of climate change. The authors conclude that Canada is on pace to overshoot its emissions target for 2020 by nearly 20 per cent, and that more action is needed to meet the Paris Agreement target by 2030.

So after failing to meet their greenhouse gas emission goals from 1998 to 2005 and knowing that they wouldn't under Chretien and Martin, the Trudeau Liberals, once gaining power in 2015, simply adopt Harper's targets. Now they are guaranteed to not even meet the 2020 targets, which is why they are talking about their 2030 targets, which would not come close to meeting Untied Nations 195 country Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2030 targets. Furthermore, the Liberals purchase and building of the Trans Mountain pipeline extension will virtually guarantee that even their own 2030 targets won't be met. After twenty years of Liberal and Conservative failure to live up to their climate change targets, why do some people keep on pushing for more of the same? Its like believing Trump will protect pre-existing condidtions because he is now saying that he will.

I'm implying that if Trudeau is replaced as PM in the upcoming election we are most likely going to get Scheer as our next PM. Unfortunately because of the unfairness of FPTP, if the NDP and Green vote increases the chances of Scheer becoming PM will also increase. This is why many on the left support electoral reform and why many on the right oppose it.

Summarizing what I said in posts 238 and 239, Canada has had twenty years of alternating Liberal and Conservative governments with greenhouse gas emissions increasing instead of decreasing.

In 1998 the Liberals signed the Kyoto Accord, but knew there was virtually no chance that they would live up to the commitment they made. Between 1998 and 2005 when the Liberal Martin government ended, instead of dropping greenhouse gas emissions 6% below 1990 levels, emissions rose by 33%.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Kyoto_Protocol)

Eddie Goldenberg, one of former prime minister Jean Chrétien's top aides, says the Liberals went ahead with the Kyoto Protocol on climate change even though they knew there was a good chance Canada wouldn't meet its goals for pollution reduction. "Nor was the government itself even ready at the time with what had to be done," he said.

In 2011, the Conservatives having done little themselves to reduce emissions pulled out of the Kyoto Accord.

After making dealing with climate change a centrepiece of the 2015 Liberal campaign, Trudeau simply adopted the quite inadequate Harper greenhouse gas emission reduction goals for 2020, which he is now guaranteed not to meet. Furthermore, he has instead bought and plans to build the Trans Mountain pipeline to further increase emissions and blow past the 2030 targets. In addition, Trudeau's 2030 emission reductions targets will not meet the need to reduce emissions by 45% laid out by the United Nations 195 country Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report released this month, which was noted by NDP MP in the previous post.

The Liberal government’s signature climate change plan — which imposes carbon pricing across the country and has been used to justify the approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion — isn’t enough to ensure Canada meets its emissions target under the Paris Agreement, according to a new report tabled Tuesday in the House of Commons.

The report, a first-of-its-kind collaboration between the auditors general of nine provinces and the federal environment commissioner, highlights “common shortcomings” in how different levels of government are combatting greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for the effects of climate change. The authors conclude that Canada is on pace to overshoot its emissions target for 2020 by nearly 20 per cent, and that more action is needed to meet the Paris Agreement target by 2030.

So after failing to meet their greenhouse gas emission goals from 1998 to 2005 and knowing that they wouldn't under Chretien and Martin, the Trudeau Liberals, once gaining power in 2015, simply adopt Harper's targets. Now they are guaranteed to not even meet the 2020 targets, which is why they are talking about their 2030 targets, which would not come close to meeting Untied Nations 195 country Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2030 targets. Furthermore, the Liberals purchase and building of the Trans Mountain pipeline extension will virtually guarantee that even their own 2030 targets won't be met. After twenty years of Liberal and Conservative failure to live up to their climate change targets, why do some people keep on pushing for more of the same? Its like believing Trump will protect pre-existing condidtions because he is now saying that he will.

-----------------------------------------

Over the last generation we have also had numerous provincial NDP governments that have governed very similarly to the political philosophy of the federal Liberals. Are Notley and Horgan different from Trudeau when it comes to supporting bitumen and LNG respectively? I see no real difference between the NDP and federal Liberals and I see a majour difference between the federal Liberals and the federal Conservatives because I think it is vital that Canada set a price on carbon.

That's the old "You have got to vote for the Liberals because they are not Conservatives" argument. In the last twenty years we've had Liberal governments under three Prime Ministers, Chretien, Martin and Trudeau, who all have not only failed to live up to their promises but knew from the start they weren't going to even try. As Eddie Goldberg, Chretien's right-hand man, admitted (and is described in the previous post), they knew from the start they would not meet their Kyoto targets and instead of decreasing emissions 6% raised them 33%. Trudeau made climate change central to his campaign and then adapted Harper's targets, which he had criticized as inadequate, but couldn't even meet them for 2020. Their 2030 targets are meaningless because of Trans Mountain, and won't even meet what is required according to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report anyway.

Trudeau has already reduced carbon pricing requirements for the biggest emitters from 70% up to 90% of the average of the industry average, thereby reducing their carbon tax and giving them less incentive to carry out a major reduction in emissions. This will benefit large corporations. (https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/08/01/trudeau-carbon-tax_a_23493952/)

That's a bill of $13.8 billion so far that is highly likely to rise. Singh proposes to stop the pipeline construction and use the money to begin the shift to renewables. If he had been in power we could have used all of this money to begin the shift to renewables. Tripling this pipeline's capacity would mean a major increase in greenhouse gas emissions and also a much greater risk of environmental damage from a spill because bitumen is extremely difficult to clean up.

On Power and Politics, Singh discussed spending at least $15 billion on shifting to renewable energy in a first term rather than building another pipeline as Trudeau wants. We are already well behind China, the European Union, India and even the United States (because of Obama) in renewable energy investment because of delays in much needed investments in Canada. Denmark, for example, is expected to generate 69% of its energy from renewables in 2022. (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/02/countries-behind-global-renewable...) Renewable energy also generates a lot more jobs per million dollars invested than fossil fuel projects, such as Trudeau's Trans Mountain piepline. (https://cleantechnica.com/2013/03/20/over-3-times-more-green-jobs-per-mi...)

I don't agree with Horgan and Trudeau's LNG plans, but at least Horgan is opposed to Trans Mountain and bitumen. Furthermore, natural gas has much lower emissions than oil, and is even mentioned as a transition fuel in the IPCC report in the move to renewables.

Having seen the Liberals fail to really even make a major effort to live up to their previous greenhouse gas emissions plans three times under Chretien, Martin and Trudeau, I am not willing to give them a fourth chance to fail.

Don't attack the carbon tax. It's fine. It's just not nearly enough. It does not make up for pushing and buying TM.

JKR wrote:

If Scheer becomes PM, carbon pricing will be abolished and TM will likely go ahead.

Pondering wrote:

What are you implying? Surely you don't think anyone here supports Scheer?

I'm implying that if Trudeau is replaced as PM in the upcoming election we are most likely going to get Scheer as our next PM. Unfortunately because of the unfairness of FPTP, if the NDP and Green vote increases the chances of Scheer becoming PM will also increase. This is why many on the left support electoral reform and why many on the right oppose it.

That's what I thought you were saying. A carbon tax is great but it is too little too late at this point. The situation is urgent. Just from an economic perspective the sooner we transition the better. Trudeau has been even worse than Harper on pipelines. He is wasting billions on TM. He's throwing bones to "the left" and counting on fear of Conservatives.

The NDP was in first place during the 2015 election. It was brief, but it was a major breakthrough. Strategic voting is something voters should decide. It is the responsibility of political parties to offer as many options as the public wants to support. In 2015 voters managed to swing between all three parties based on some pretty obvious events such as platform announcements and debates.

Canadians now have the example of the NDP and Greens in BC overthrowing the Liberals. I doubt Scheer could get a majority first go around. Harper took 3 tries. Liberals and NDP could overthrow Conservatives. Alternately, although I know it is a longshot, the NDP could win. Either way the voters will decide.

I'm excited about the NDP and Singh. During the leadership race I was leaning towards Guy Caron because he talked about the need to restructure the economy and that precarious work is unacceptable. Something Singh has also said. Caron is an economist so he understand what he is talking about. In early days Angus seemed disgruntled but now it seems he is close to Singh. Singh's choice to run in BC indicates to me that the federal NDP picked sides. Climate change and pollution in general are causing people constant stress and fear for the future and for their children's future.

We need a party that offers a realistic path to a cleaner more stable future. If the NDP comes closer to that ideal than the Liberals the Liberals will just have to compete. That's democracy. Voters are perfectly capable of deciding which party they want to unite behind. They proved that in 2015 when they wandered from the Conservatives to the NDP to the Liberals in a matter of weeks.

The Liberals have one term of baggage now. I don't think the NDP is any threat for 2019. Canadians will give Trudeau another term. In my opinion the NDP is rebuilding its brand based on the central challenges facing the 99%. Climate change and economic instability. Trudeau has had one term and has another coming to prove himself. Don't blame the NDP if he fails to deal with the most pressing issues facing Canadians and humanity.

It's up to the Liberals to earn my support and the support of all voters. Harper the boogie man didn't work in 2005. Scheer the boogie man won't work now. It's a damning argument as well.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Conservatives win the day on climate change even if they only represent the 1 in 3 voters who think climate change is not a problem. That's how FPTP works when there are more than two political parties and the vote gets split. During the 2015 election the Conservative vote stayed mostly the same while the other voters fluctuated between the Liberals and NDP.

Following each of the four elections that the Liberals have won since 1997 in which they campaigned on reducing emissions every time, greenhouse gas emissions have risen substantially despite these promises. Voting the same way and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity, especially when the Liberals adapt Harper's emissions standards, continue their fossil fuel industry subsidies, provide exemptions on carbon pricing to the biggest greenhouse gas emiiters, and spend billions on fossil fuel projects such as the Trans Mountain pipeline.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Conservatives win the day on climate change even if they only represent the 1 in 3 voters who think climate change is not a problem. That's how FPTP works when there are more than two political parties and the vote gets split. During the 2015 election the Conservative vote stayed mostly the same while the other voters fluctuated between the Liberals and NDP.

Yes, they fluctuated and chose Trudeau so Harper did not win another term. They can do the same this election and even if the vote is split Scheer would likely only get a minority which could easily be overthrown by the Liberals and NDP teaming up.

Voters are well aware that we have a FPTP system and vote accordingly.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Conservatives win the day on climate change even if they only represent the 1 in 3 voters who think climate change is not a problem. That's how FPTP works when there are more than two political parties and the vote gets split. During the 2015 election the Conservative vote stayed mostly the same while the other voters fluctuated between the Liberals and NDP.

Yes, they fluctuated and chose Trudeau so Harper did not win another term. They can do the same this election and even if the vote is split Scheer would likely only get a minority which could easily be overthrown by the Liberals and NDP teaming up.

Voters are well aware that we have a FPTP system and vote accordingly.

They also know not to trust the Liberals.

The best hope remains a minority.

I also think that Trudeau does not really have much ideology personally. For this reason a Liberal minority could actually be effective witht he NDP pressing them to do things. Would only take a handful of NDP MPs to achieve this if the Liberals and Conservatives are close to tied.

An NDP win is to beat the difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

While Trudeau is not trustworthy, I think he leans a little more to the NDP than the Conservatives generally (thanks to the Conservatives being the bigger threat and to the extreme nature of the Conservatives now. If he could say "they made me do it" he might actually support some progressive things that on his own he would not have the courage to do.

The Liberals are very close to the old Progressive Conservatives who were not far from the Liberals of old. However, the political changes have the new Conservatives further away from the PCs of the 1990s than those PCs were from the NDP.

Also the political reality, that the Liberals know well is that their supporters are closer to the NDP than they are to the Conservatives politically.

Thus, a minority Liberal government today would be most likely to work with the NDP.

This does not mean such a government woudl not require considerable compromise from the NDP. It could possibly look to PR, provide more to lower income Canadians in services, maintain a price on carbon, allow some measures for regulation of carbon release, and even actually deliver on some promises to Indigenous people.

I think the price for the NDP might be some compromises pipelines conditional on Indigenous support along the way.

Very limited but better than either a Liberal majority or any kind of Conservative government.

It would not be an NDP government or much of a partnership. It would be a Liberal government with key critical consessions to the NDP to obtain their lifeline.

If people want to do the strategic vote thing - a situation we are only in becuase of a broken Liberal promise - they should vote NDP in all potential NDP-Conservative, NDP-Liberal races, and in all distant Liberal Conservative races. Liberals should vote Liberal in all races except for close NDP Conservative races. The top 10-20 qualifying close races should be the only target. With this limitation, there would be enough credibility for NDP supporters not to see this as only a Liberal attempt to absorb their vote even in NDP-Liberal contests.

I think this is positive. Such an event ought not to include only those in favour.

I also think that given the circumstances people can have very similar outlooks but based on their judgments could come to different conclusions as to whether this was the best deal possible, if no deal would have been better or worse. I suspect that many political leaders, if honest, would have to say they are not wholly satisfied, that Canada was beat up. There may not be much ground between those who grudgingly accept this and those who would have prefered no deal or think that a better deal was possible since these may not reflect differences of opinion about what is right and instead reflect differences of opinion about the implications and costs of the choices in the circumstances.

I personally struggle with this. I think the deal is not good but blame more than anything else the position Canada is in with respect to dependency. This also leads me to mixed feelings about other trade deals which could reduce reliance on this one - or any individual one.

My view of what is optimal and desireable is at odds with what I think is practically possible in the present environment. Too many real lives are involved to take strictly principled decisions. some people are in better positions to take long-term vs short term views. I disagree with any simplistic view of the economic circumstance of Canada.

There are ecological issues at stake as well: in some cases it is less wasteful and costly to the planet to centralize some activities and in many others it is better to do things only locally. The ecological component of all trade deals is badly wanting.

So too is the social justice and equality contexts.

Both support and opposition to trade is dominated by those who have little regard for workers (globally not just locally) or the environment. This is true of those on both sides now. Both sides are led by corporate powers bringing theor own interests for and against globalized trade over the interests of workers and the planet.